| “ | In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate. | ” |
Thursday, February 17, 2011
7 comments:
-
I-RIGHT-I said...
-
I really hope Annie Panty recuses herself from this story. I'd hate to remove her from my list of "Women I'd love to stalk if I only knew where to start" list.
-
2/17/11, 7:19 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Make him pay back all the money spent on those vacations too.
Casca -
2/17/11, 7:41 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
This would be sweet if 5 justices throw his halfrican lying ass out, but I think they see that action as a great danger to the country, in that it would be seen similar to SCOTUS stopping the Gore recounts in Florida, only writ MUCH larger. There would be riots for sure. They also might feel that such action would be a major upset of the three-branch sharing of power if SCOTUS were to "depose" POTUS.
The one thing that is beyond me is how various courts have dismissed petioners for lack of standing in the eligibility suits brought. How can a voting citizen not have standing to question the legality of a candidate in an election in which he votes?
If we're to have a Constitution that means anything, however, I say let's lance this boil and deal with the smell.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick -
2/17/11, 8:18 PM
-
TimO said...
-
After all, the Dem overlords HAVE to find a reason to blame all the current problems on Bush and Obama so they can nominate Hillary to be the first woman President....
-
2/17/11, 10:32 PM
-
Kristophr said...
-
At this point, Hillary would be an improvement.
-
2/18/11, 4:20 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Bring on the riots! I just bought another 1000 rounds of 5.56.
-
2/18/11, 9:44 AM
-
Walt said...
-
I'm sorry guys, but I think the court is going to uphold the healthcare statute. They would be wrong, but that hasn't stopped the court for about eighty years of supporting the expansion of the federal government contrary to the constitutional limitations. I see nothing that says the court will reverse the trend.
There will be demonstrations. Because that's pretty much the only thing we have in our vocabulary of outrage, once it's clear that votes are ignored. But the real blood-in-the-streets rebellion comes later. And it will be bad.
And there isn't any need for it. This whole mess could be turned around in a matter of years. -
2/18/11, 8:33 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)